women priests

[Picky_Picky]

Now that is more like it. It makes an attempt to compare elements with recipients. It does not, incorrectly, state that ordinands are “matter” as wine and bread are “matter”. Whether elements and recipients can be equated is a theological question beyond my grade. Beyond our grade?

 

[Rau]

Not mischievous at all, it was how it sounded to me.

Jesus didn’t ordain priests like we do now, he gave to authority to Peter in which to build his Church, I can not be 100% sure he never intended women to be priests, in fact it is sounding very strange now that women were never priests.

Peter’s authority is not unfettered - he has Christ’s teaching and all of Christ’s actions as a model. Christ instituted the Priesthood as he did. AFAIK, he did not explain his rationale for all men - we only have this model, or precedent.

 

[ericc]

I enjoyed Peter Kreeft’s audio on “Women and the Priesthood” , almost 64mins long.

Why “only boys can be the daddies”

I thought of writing down the gist of it for sharing but found that too difficult for me. Sorry.

youtube.com/watch?v=kgou9QDR4KM.

I hope this clip helps to deepen some understanding even though it may not be what you want to hear.

 

[Contarini]

Your post is a little mischievous. Jesus chose men to be his first priests, not women. He chose bread and wine for use in the Eucharist. Can we do better than to emulate him? Should we depart from his fairly particular choices? How would we reach such a conclusion?

The same way you reach the conclusion that English-speakers can be ordained, even though none of them were among the Twelve.

It’s a question of ontology. Do men and women share the same human nature, the one Christ assumed for our salvation? If they do, then simpleas’ point is right on target–it’s absurd as well as insulting to compare women to dogs, maple trees, or dolphins. If they don’t, then it’s not clear how women can be saved.

The logic of the orthodox Faith points toward women’s ordination. Modern “orthodox” Catholics reject or alter or ignore basic principles of theological anthropology and soteriology in order to maintain a traditional practice. Do you see why those priorities seem a bit off to me? And also why I am frustrated and bemused by everyone’s unwillingness to discuss this basic theological issue?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Here’s one such sentence: “Women cannot be ordained priests because they are not men.”

It’s similar in format to a statement such as: “Men cannot be mothers because they are not women.”

But the parallel between priests and motherhood is a false one, obviously. Mothers are parallel to [biological] fathers, not to priests.

This is one of those strange bits of illogic that just make one dizzy. They crop up over and over again in this discussion. If you really want to commend the authority of the Church, stop supporting it by such utterly absurd arguments.

Edwin

 

[Rau]

The same way you reach the conclusion that English-speakers can be ordained, even though none of them were among the Twelve.

It’s a question of ontology. Do men and women share the same human nature, the one Christ assumed for our salvation? If they do, then simpleas’ point is right on target–it’s absurd as well as insulting to compare women to dogs, maple trees, or dolphins. If they don’t, then it’s not clear how women can be saved.

The logic of the orthodox Faith points toward women’s ordination. Modern “orthodox” Catholics reject or alter or ignore basic principles of theological anthropology and soteriology in order to maintain a traditional practice. Do you see why those priorities seem a bit off to me? And also why I am frustrated and bemused by everyone’s unwillingness to discuss this basic theological issue?

Edwin

It is a universal Church commanded to teach all nations. Languages must be spanned.

Christ gave no hint that women can be ordained. The Church, exercising its God -given authority is unable to conclude it is permissible to ordain women. What should the Church do?

 

[Contarini]

It is a universal Church commanded to teach all nations. Languages must be spanned.

Christ gave no hint that women can be ordained. The Church, exercising its God -given authority is unable to conclude it is permissible to ordain women. What should the Church do?

So you’re quite willing to use pragmatic reasoning to overcome the supposed difficulty of ordaining a class of persons whom Jesus did not “ordain,” but you can’t use theological reasoning from basic Christian doctrine (Christ assumed human nature to save both men and women)? Something is odd here.

Edwin

 

[JimG]

But the parallel between priests and motherhood is a false one, obviously. Mothers are parallel to [biological] fathers, not to priests.

This is one of those strange bits of illogic that just make one dizzy. They crop up over and over again in this discussion. If you really want to commend the authority of the Church, stop supporting it by such utterly absurd arguments.

Edwin

The argument is that women cannot be priests because they are not men. That’s just a fact. Asking why, or trying to explain why, just causes a lot of words to be expended to no effect, since the situation will not change. And priests are spiritual fathers.

Yes, woman and men both have human natures. But human beings do come in two sexes—man and woman, and they are quite different in some respects. Jesus became incarnate as a man. I don’t think it’s my place to ask why.

But if the second person of the Trinity had become incarnate as a woman, do you think that men could be priests? I don’t.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #189
The logic of the orthodox Faith points toward women’s ordination.

Obviously there is no logic in such a conclusion.

1. The “Faith” (and morals) can only be taught in their fullness through Christ’s Church.
2. Jesus Christ in no way, shape or form, while exalting women as never before by being born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and His Church by calling Her co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate, have shown appreciation of her exalted status.
3. That the Christ ordained only men to be priests at the Last Supper is vital, therefore.
4. That Christ has clearly given His Church supreme authority to teach on faith and morals and She has emphatically and infallibly declared that women cannot be priests is the ultimate for every real Catholic.

Dissent in the face of overwhelming evidence from Christ and His Church, and of the reasons given by St John Paul II, is the ultimate in rejection of Him and of His Church.

I am frustrated and bemused by everyone’s unwillingness to discuss this basic theological issue

The fundamental issues have been discussed and expressed fully and completely and the evidence of acceptance of the doctrine, after rejection, has been demonstrated conclusively in the case of Sister Sara Butler.

 

[brian_custer]

in fact it is sounding very strange now that women were never priests.

why?

 

[ericc]

Peter Kreeft’s audio on “Women and the Priesthood”

Why “only boys can be the daddies”

youtube.com/watch?v=kgou9QDR4KM.

I managed to find transcripts from 2 sources.

1. thegingercatholic.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-only-boys-can-be-daddies.html

There are 4 reasons of why Women can’t be Priests. 1) Reasons of Authority 2) Reasons of Sexual Symbolism 3) Reasons of Ecclesiastical Common Good and 4) Reasons of Discernment

1. Reasons of Authority

There are 3

God- The Church did not create the Priesthood, she received it from God, the Author. The Catholic Priesthood was not the first priesthood he created, he did it twice before with the Jews, but that is neither here nor there.

The Catholic Church claims LESS Authority than any other Christian Religion. The word Authority means “Authors Rights”. Where Protestants feel they have the ability to change or deny any doctrine they see fit (The reason there are 33,000 different Denominations), the Catholic Church knows that they do not, because they don’t get to decide how God thinks, only God does. It is this reason that the Catholic Church is so conservative. Times change, God does not and the Catholic Church knows that. The Catholic Church therefore cannot change the Priesthood because they are not it’s author or its editor.

Christ- As God created the Priesthood of Old, Christ Fulfilled the Priesthood in the New Testament by choosing his Apostles. But why did he choose only Male Disciples? The popular idea is that Christ bowed to cultural norms of the day that said that women were weaker and lesser than men. But to say that Christ was restrained by cultural limitations is a Heresy and a denial of the Incarnation. Can you really accuse Christ of the Sin of Sexism? Can you honestly believe that Christ was limited by his Culture? Christ breaks and offends his cultural norms with regularity in the Gospels, most of them being of greater importance than sexism. For instance, when he told his disciples to eat with unwashed hands or to drink his blood.

Jesus chose his Priests.

Church- The Jewish and Catholic Churches are the only ancient religions to have an exclusively male priesthood. All other religions of the times has priestesses of some kind. The Jewish Church was the first Church to exclusively use Masculine imagery for God and the priesthood reflects that.

Also, There is no evidence in the New Testament or the early church of female Priests. In fact, St. Paul indicated the exact opposite. The Church has said no to priestesses not only from her beginning but through the years and still today. The Church has spoken clearly, publicly, Authoritatively and Magisterially. The Church has spoken the case is closed. The main issue is not whether the Church will have Priestesses, but whether or not those seeking them will have the Church.

1. Reasons of Sexual Symbolism

(for a more detailed transcript please see catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/sexual-symbolism.html

Everything that God creates point beyond itself. Especially Sex and Sexuality. God deliberately created man and woman to reflect trinitarian love in the same way that God deliberately incarnated himself as a male. Jesus Christ is still a male today and he still has his male body in heaven.

Priests must be male because Christ is male. When the Priest says the words"This is my body/blood given up for you" that is not merely him speaking but Christ. Christ Literally speaks through that Priest, and because Christ is a male, so must the Priest also be.

Christ was Incarnated as a male because God is masculine. God is not a male, he is masculine. There is a large difference. In almost every language other than English, there are masculine and feminine nouns. Things like the sun are always male and the moon is always feminine. The Masculine in a relationship offers while the female receives. Because of this, we are all feminine in relation to God. God pours out his love for us and we must receive it and reciprocate. We cannot initiate a loving relationship with God, he must initiate and we must receive. To God, we are all his bride. He is he and we are all she.

I leave this Point with the inexhaustible words of C.S. Lewis…

“Why should a woman not in this [priestly] sense represent God?.. Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to ‘Our Mother which art in Heaven’ as to ‘Our Father’. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does… …Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say… that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin… And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity… It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery… …One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church.”

Simply Put, Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. To allow Female Priests would be to will a Spiritual “Lesbianism” of sorts. The Priest represents Christ and Christ represents the Father. The Priest must be male because Christ is male and Christ is male because the father is masculine.

 

[ericc]

I enjoyed Peter Kreeft’s audio on “Women and the Priesthood” , almost 64mins long.

Why “only boys can be the daddies”

I thought of writing down the gist of it for sharing but found that too difficult for me. Sorry.

youtube.com/watch?v=kgou9QDR4KM.

I hope this clip helps to deepen some understanding even though it may not be what you want to hear.

cont’d

1. Reasons of Ecclesiastical Common Good

This Argument is an issue of Common Sense and or Order. Basically, “What would the Church with Priestesses look like?” The only reason to allow Priestesses would be for the improvement of the Church Laity, not the improvement of the Priest. After all, a priest is a servant of the Church, not the other way around.

What Damage would Priestesses do?
For one, it would shake the confidence in the church’s authority by shaking off 1900 years of Dogma, Papal Declarations, The Words and teachings of the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. To begin to Ordain them would at least place a very real and sincere doubt into the minds of people. If the Church could be wrong about this for 2000 years, what else could it be wrong about? It may even inspire doubts about Christ’s divinity and infallibility. The Church’s beliefs in the Priesthood are like it’s beliefs in divorce, homosexuality, contraception, sex before marriage, etc. If you take one brick out the whole structure collapses, for each of the Church’s beliefs are a keystone. Each rests on the other and provides structure and balance. Each Belief is not from the Church but from Christ and from his authority alone. If we are wrong about this then it means that Jesus made a mistake… Which calls into question EVERYTHING about Christianity.

More Practically, many people would doubt the Validity of Womens Ordination, and the sacraments that they would administrate. “Are my sins really forgiven if I go to that Priestess? Is this really the Body of Christ?” People who did not believe in the Ordination of Women would go to other Churches in the area causing a rift. This, in a nutshell, is how Protestant Churches split. The inevitable end to this would be one Church splitting from the other, creating a second Schism.

It would tear apart the Church world wide. Nearly all other cultures outside of US, Canada, and Western Europe are adamantly opposed to womens ordination. The Lafebvre tragedy magnified 1 million times. The Protestant reformation a second time.

1. Reasons of Discernment

There is only one reason to become a Priest; because you are called to be by God. Well how do you know the Will of God? Prayer is a good start, but it is at best like talking on the phone while driving through a tunnel. It allows for communication, but also demands interpretation. The only way to truly, infallibly know the will of God is by Divine Inspiration, and through the Church, God has Divinely revealed who he wants his priests to be. If you do not believe that God Divinely Reveals himself through the Church then you cannot truly call yourself a Catholic.

If the only reason to become a Priest is by Gods will, and God has revealed through his Church who he wants his Priests to be, and that is men, then Women cannot possibly become Priests. Women cannot be called by God to be priests because he does not call women to the Priesthood. Women seeking to be Priests seek their ordination not out of a calling from God but from a calling within themselves. Somewhere on their journey of Discernment, they made the very common error of confusing God’s Voice with the voice of our heart. They may want to become Priests, but that does not equate them to being called by God to become Priests.

 

[Rau]

So you’re quite willing to use pragmatic reasoning to overcome the supposed difficulty of ordaining a class of persons whom Jesus did not “ordain,” but you can’t use theological reasoning from basic Christian doctrine (Christ assumed human nature to save both men and women)? Something is odd here.

Edwin

I use pragmatic reasoning to understand how the Church concludes it is not empowered to take women into the priesthood - as we understand that institution.

The Church, exercising its God -given authority is unable to conclude it is permissible to ordain women. What should the Church do?

It is curious that your reasoning causes you to conclude it is empowered to ordain women, but it does not cause the Magisterium to come to that conclusion. Something is odd here!

 

[Jerurussia]

Men alone can atone for the “Sin of Adam.” Not any women in the OT or NT offering sacrifice for the “Sin of Adam.” Get it?

 

[tomarin]

I use pragmatic reasoning to understand how the Church concludes it is not empowered to take women into the priesthood - as we understand that institution.

The Church, exercising its God -given authority is unable to conclude it is permissible to ordain women. What should the Church do?

It is curious that your reasoning causes you to conclude it is empowered to ordain women, but it does not cause the Magisterium to come to that conclusion. Something is odd here!

He wants to know what it is about women, if they share the same human nature as men, that disallows them from being ordained. The only answers so far have been along the lines of because the Church says so and the original apostles were men (but they were also Jews and not being Jewish clearly isn’t sufficient reason not to ordain a person).

Those two answers may be sufficient for most of the posters here but I think Edwin is correct in saying that his question hasn’t been answered - because there is no real answer. (Saying the Church says so is an appeal to authority. It may be an authority that I recognize but in logical terms it is still an appeal to authority.)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

He wants to know what it is about women, if they share the same human nature as men, that disallows them from being ordained. The only answers so far have been along the lines of because the Church says so and the original apostles were men (but they were also Jews and not being Jewish clearly isn’t sufficient reason not to ordain a person).

Those two answers may be sufficient for most of the posters here but I think Edwin is correct in saying that his question hasn’t been answered - because there is no real answer. (Saying the Church says so is an appeal to authority. It may be an authority that I recognize but in logical terms it is still an appeal to authority.)

The point is that it is NOT the Church that ‘says so’. It is God Himself who says so.

People seem to be confused about what the Church is and does.

The Church is not saying, “Well, WE have decided that because Jesus never ordained women, Because the original apostles were men, because Christ is the Bridegroom THEREFORE WE have chosen to ordain men only, and not women.”

The Church is saying, “God has given us this teaching, that sacramental priesthood is for men only. We understand that God’s reasons are demonstrated, AMONG OTHERS which HE ALONE knows, by the following: Jesus did not ordain women, etc.”

BECAUSE God has specifically taught that sacramental priesthood is limited to males, and has given us various reasons that we can understand (and possibly there are others which we, being finite beings, cannot understand), we also understand the Church HAS NO AUTHORITY to ordain women.

We understand that we can no more ‘change God’s teaching’ on this matter of faith and morals than we can change God’s teaching about who may receive the sacrament of matrimony, what are the accidents of the Eucharist, etc, whether God is a Trinity or a Dynamic Duo, etc.

Unfortunately it seems too many people want to just ‘la la la I’m not listening’ and insist that the Church can DARN WELL CHANGE this because ‘it doesn’t make sense and it’s mean.’

We can no more change what God has taught to something that He has NOT taught than we can make square circles.

 

[Contarini]

I use pragmatic reasoning to understand how the Church concludes it is not empowered to take women into the priesthood - as we understand that institution.

The Church, exercising its God -given authority is unable to conclude it is permissible to ordain women. What should the Church do?

It is curious that your reasoning causes you to conclude it is empowered to ordain women, but it does not cause the Magisterium to come to that conclusion. Something is odd here!

Which is why more clarification is needed.

The reasons so far given are brittle and unconvincing.

I don’t really think Rome has taken this issue seriously yet.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Men alone can atone for the “Sin of Adam.” Not any women in the OT or NT offering sacrifice for the “Sin of Adam.” Get it?

No. Because priests do not atone for the sin of Adam in their own person but in persona Christi.

Also, what about the sin of Eve? Who atones for that?

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

The point is that it is NOT the Church that ‘says so’. It is God Himself who says so.

People seem to be confused about what the Church is and does.

The Church is not saying, “Well, WE have decided that because Jesus never ordained women, Because the original apostles were men, because Christ is the Bridegroom THEREFORE WE have chosen to ordain men only, and not women.”

The Church is saying, “God has given us this teaching, that sacramental priesthood is for men only. We understand that God’s reasons are demonstrated, AMONG OTHERS which HE ALONE knows, by the following: Jesus did not ordain women, etc.”

BECAUSE God has specifically taught that sacramental priesthood is limited to males, and has given us various reasons that we can understand (and possibly there are others which we, being finite beings, cannot understand), we also understand the Church HAS NO AUTHORITY to ordain women.

We understand that we can no more ‘change God’s teaching’ on this matter of faith and morals than we can change God’s teaching about who may receive the sacrament of matrimony, what are the accidents of the Eucharist, etc, whether God is a Trinity or a Dynamic Duo, etc.

Unfortunately it seems too many people want to just ‘la la la I’m not listening’ and insist that the Church can DARN WELL CHANGE this because ‘it doesn’t make sense and it’s mean.’

We can no more change what God has taught to something that He has NOT taught than we can make square circles.

With all due respect, saying it’s God’s will not the Church’s is not any less an appeal to authority, it’s just a shift to a higher authority.

Are women and men different in soteriological terms? If not it seems that females should be able to act in persona Christi. If not why not?

I’m not asking because I want to be difficult or disobedient (I don’t, and I’m not) but because I believe our faith is based on reason not mindless obedience.

I think I will leave it at that, since I don’t want to initiate a dialogue that is mostly us talking past each other.

 

[JimG]

I personally think that it has to do with acting “in persona Christi.” Yes, Christ had a human nature, as well as a divine nature. In his person he is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Divine Word, God the Son.

Now, man and woman both have a human nature. But they are still man and woman. Christ is a man. The priest is a man. I think it has something to do with standing at the altar and speaking, in the person of Christ, “this is MY body.”

But that’s just my theory. I don’t think the Church has articulated it. But the Church doesn’t need to articulate it. It doesn’t even have to fully understand it. All it is required to do is to hand down what is has received.